Based on mood management theory and the broaden-and-build theory, this study examines whether an individual’s emotional state influences the persuasive efficacy of climate change news framing techniques. To test our hypothesis, we conducted a 2 (Message Framing: thematic vs. episodic) × 2 (Emotion: positive vs. control) between-subjects factorial design experiment. Results indicate that episodically framed messages significantly decrease news believability and risk perception for people in a positive emotional state. News believability and risk perception positively mediated the effects of emotion and message frame on policy support and behavioral intention.
AarøeL. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226.
2.
AttariS. Z.KrantzD. H.WeberE. U. (2016). Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice. Climatic Change, 138(1), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1713-2
3.
BertolottiM.CatellaniP. (2014). Effects of message framing in policy communication on climate change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2033
4.
BoykoffM. T. (2013). Public enemy no. 1? Understanding media representations of outlier views on climate change. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 796–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213476846
5.
BrackenC. C. (2006). Perceived source credibility of local television news: The impact of television form and presence. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(4), 723–741.
6.
BrantnerC.LobingerK.WetzsteinI. (2011). Effects of visual framing on emotional responses and evaluations of news stories about the Gaza conflict 2009. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(3), 523–540.
7.
CappellaJ. N.LermanC.RomantanA.BaruhL. (2005). News about genetics and smoking: Priming, family smoking history, and news story believability on inferences of genetic susceptibility to tobacco addiction. Communication Research, 32(4), 478–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205277320
8.
ChadwickA. E. (2015). Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication, 30(6), 598–611.
9.
ClarkL.IversenS. D.GoodwinG. M. (2001). The influence of positive and negative mood states on risk taking, verbal fluency, and salivary cortisol. Journal of Affective Disorders, 63, 179–187.
10.
CloreG. L.HuntsingerJ. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 393–399.
11.
ColemanR.ThorsonE.WilkinsL. (2011). Testing the effect of framing and sourcing in health news stories. Journal of Health Communication, 16(9), 941–954.
12.
DasguptaN.DeStenoD.WilliamsL. A.HunsingerM. (2009). Fanning the flames of prejudice: The influence of specific incidental emotions on implicit prejudice. Emotion, 9(4), 585–591.
13.
DeStenoD.PettyR. E.RuckerD. D.WegenerD. T.BravermanJ. (2004). Discrete emotions and persuasion: The role of emotion-induced expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 43–56.
14.
DillardJ. P.PeckE. (2001). Persuasion and the structure of affect. Dual systems and discrete emotions as complementary models. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 38–68.
15.
DunlapR. E. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.1.3-18
16.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2010). Climate change denial: Sources, actors and strategies. In Lever-TracyC. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of climate change and society (pp. 240–259). Routledge.
17.
DunnJ. R.SchweitzerM. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 736–748.
18.
EngelsA.HütherO.SchäferM.HeldH. (2013). Public climate-change skepticism, energy preferences and political participation. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1018–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.008
19.
EscalasJ. E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639163
20.
ForgasJ. P. (1994). The role of emotion in social judgments: An introductory review and an Affect Infusion Model (AIM). European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 1–24.
21.
ForgasJ. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66.
22.
FranssonN.GärlingT. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 369–382.
23.
FredricksonB. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
24.
GasperK.CloreG. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science, 13(1), 34–40.
25.
GerendM. A.ManerJ. K. (2011). Fear, anger, fruits, and veggies: Interactive effects of emotion and message framing on health behavior. Health Psychology, 30(4), 420–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021981
26.
GriskeviciusV.ShiotaM. N.NeufeldS. L. (2010). Influence of different positive emotions on persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary approach. Emotion, 10(2), 190–206.
27.
GrossK. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00622.x
28.
HaighM. M. (2010). Newspapers use three frames to cover alternative energy. Newspaper Research Journal, 31(2), 47–62.
29.
HaighM. M.BrubakerP. J.HerescoA. (2009). The impact of mood and story frame on associative networks. American Journal of Media Psychology, 2(1–2), 57–75.
30.
HartP. S. (2011). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33(1), 28–51.
31.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
32.
HuY.WangD.PangK.XuG.GuoJ. (2015). The effect of emotion and time pressure on risk decision-making. Journal of Risk Research, 18(5), 637–650.
33.
IyengarS. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992330
34.
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.
35.
JohnsonD. R. (2012). Transportation into a story increases empathy, prosocial behavior, and perceptual bias toward fearful expressions. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.005
LaskinA. V. (2018). The third-person effects in the investment decision making: A case of corporate social responsibility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 23(3), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-10-2017-0099
38.
LeBlancV. R.McConnellM. M.MonteiroS. D. (2015). Predictable chaos: A review of the effects of emotions on attention, memory and decision making. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(1), 265–282.
39.
LeiserowitzA. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 45–72.
40.
LernerJ. S.GonzalezR. M.SmallD. A.FischhoffB. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14(2), 144–150.
41.
LieskeD. J.WadeT.RonessL. A. (2014). Climate change awareness and strategies for communicating the risk of coastal flooding: A Canadian maritime case example. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 140, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.04.017
42.
LinW. B. (2008). Investigation on the model of consumers’ perceived risk—Integrated viewpoint. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(2), 977–988.
43.
MajorL. H. (2011). The mediating role of emotions in the relationship between frames and attribution of responsibility for health problems. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(3), 502–522.
44.
MajorL. H. (2018). Mental health news: How frames influence support for policy and civic engagement intentions. Journal of Health Communication, 23(1), 52–60.
45.
NabiR. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference?Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247.
46.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A.OxleyZ. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583.
OliverM. B.DillardJ. P.BaeK.TamulD. J. (2012). The effect of narrative news format on empathy for stigmatized groups. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699012439020
49.
RichinsM. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 127–146.
50.
SakakiM. (2007). Mood and recall of autobiographical memory: The effect of focus of self-knowledge. Journal of Personality, 75(3), 421–450.
51.
Schmid-PetriH. (2017). Politicization of science: How climate change skeptics use experts and scientific evidence in their online communication. Climatic Change, 145(3), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2112-z
52.
SchwarzN. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 289–308.
53.
SeptiantoF.NortheyG.DolanR. (2019). The effects of political ideology and message framing on counterfeiting: The mediating role of emotions. Journal of Business Research, 99, 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.059
54.
ShawM. E. M. D. L.WeaverD. H.Mc CombsM. (1997). Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Psychology Press.
55.
SmithN.LeiserowitzA. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12140
56.
SpringerS. A.HarwoodJ. (2015). The influence of episodic and thematic frames on policy and group attitudes: Mediational analysis. Human Communication Research, 41(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12045
57.
van LaerT.de RuyterK.ViscontiL. M.WetzelsM. (2014). The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ narrative transportation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1086/673383
WatersE. A. (2008). Feeling good, feeling bad, and feeling at-risk: A review of incidental affect’s influence on likelihood estimates of health hazards and life events. Journal of Risk Research, 11(5), 569–595.
60.
WatsonD.WieseD.VaidyaJ.TellegenA. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 820–838.
61.
XuS. (2018). When individual cultural orientation and mediated portrayal of risk intersect: Effects of individualism–collectivism and media framing on risk perception and attribution of responsibility. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(4), 499–509.
62.
ZillmannD. (1988). Mood management through communication choices. American Behavioral Scientist, 31(3), 327–340.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
